This is in response to the counter-petition by this anonymous member of the public. Quotations from the counter-petition are followed by a response.
Quote 1: "Sexuality is central to humanity - it's why we even exist. Even the aforementioned petition's starters were able to exist and start a petition because their parents had sexual fantasies at some point and decided to have sex and give birth to them."
Response 1: No, sexuality isn't ALL it is nor central to humanity. In this particular case of ‘sex acts’, it is HOW we exist (i.e. how we want to live), not why (purpose) that we even exist. Purpose is something we find or make of ourselves (some find it in a religious faith, some in their achievements or material gains, and increasingly for some, sex.
Quote 2: "This is what I conceive LTAS to be about - discourse on sexuality to educate the student population on sexuality and to also provide voices to students to talk about such matters that they won't be able to do so outside Tembusu college. "
Response 2: It is a false impression that they won't be able to 'provide voices', there are many ways they can be organising this OUTSIDE of school (not suggesting that we are supporting it either, but for the sake of pointing out facts on the matter). The issue is with the event organised WITHIN the school, and this leads us to the next point.
Quote 3: "NUS students are not children. They are adults. Some of them have even shot rifles before. Nobody in the College is forcing students to attend these talks. Students are old enough and completely free to decide whether they want to attend these talks or not."
Response 3: Not all NUS students are above the age of 21. Many of them are schooling under the sponsorship of parents, and most importantly, parents have placed enormous trust in schools and the Ministry of Education.
The fact that the event is organised under the NUS or Tembusu College's name is highly problematic in several ways:
- It suggests that BDSM is as simple as any non-violent/restraining sexual intercourse when it isn't – it is extremely niche and exploration of this kind of sexual fantasy is not healthy as BDSM involves domination and ‘torture with pleasure’, no one should be encouraged to dominate/oppress or torture another person for the sake of personal pleasure.
- Due to BDSM’s domination-subjugation nature, movies depicting it have been rated R21. Promoting other forms of sex acts are also highly sensitive and can be obscene. Will organisers be held to the standard of setting age-limits and being required to ensure that this is strictly enforced?
- Such publicity suggests that the school not only endorses it but also feels that this sex act deserves publicity and support -> most parents who send their children to NUS and Tembusu may not be comfortable with that. The school has to remain accountable to stakeholders who trust them.
- Event slots and resources are limited. Yet, they are being taken up to make space to promote liberal attitudes towards sex and fan sexual fantasies. Are we suggesting to people and students that other good causes don't deserve publicity but something like these do in their place?
The example of ‘having shot a rifle’ is a strange one to bring in, unless the author too carries a subconscious acknowledgement that BDSM acts are as dangerous as the handling of a rifle?
Quote 4: "On the 0101 studio session - if the petition starters were aware, rope bondage can be non-violent. If this is the kind of rope bondage that LTAS was to educate the student body about, then the petitioner's argument on 'dangerous' and 'life-threatening' content falls. Having a facilitator who has done such activities in a non-violent way can potentially guide newcomers on how this can be done in a safe, non-violent way."
Response 4: As the author suggests - 'rope bondage can be non-violent', the reverse is also implicitly admitted; i.e. violence, domination, torture are acknowledged. We all know that tutorials don't always impart 100% to attendees. People can get hurt in the process of experimentation when their curiosity is piqued without actually knowing all the potential harms that can happen along the way.
Are the organisers also ready to disclose the incidents where severe harm occurred OR to disclose the potential harms within their 'talk' in order to give curious participants a fair chance to assess and decide their own life/sex choices? Also, will the organisers be willing to take responsibility for any harm experienced by those who experiment or subsequently indulge in such sexual fantasy?
Quote 5: "Everyone should be free in this country to decide where they want to stand on LGBT issues. But what we cannot condone as a society would be to indulge in cancel culture and censor discourse on such issues. The exchange of views and speech is integral to our societal evolution. The Internet can be one place to do that, but it is easy to take discussions out of context when they are not held in a face-to-face manner."
Response 5: We agree that we can't indulge in cancel culture, and that exchange of views and speech is integral to a growing civil society. However, are the writers a part of the cancel mob when it came to the Mediacorp saga and which sought to cancel and force Mediacorp for an apology for a fictional (but not far-fetched nor detached from reality) story?
Point is, pulling in 'cancel culture' as a convenient defence is a poor argument, it side-steps away from the actual matters/issues at hand which should be discussed: In this case, it’s the domination and subjugation involved in BDSM sex acts or fantasies.
The point of the first petition is not to 'cancel' but to request accountability from Tembusu College, NUS and the Ministry of Education. All these organisations are accountable to parents who entrusted their children to them, people who chose to enrol themselves in the school and hostel of which we cannot assume to all be comfortable with such talks happening and being actively promoted under their school's name, in fact discomfort might be the overwhelming response.
Not sure why the last sentence is there, is the author suggesting that things are taken out-of-context and they prefer to have a face-to-face discussion with the original petitioner, NUS, Tembusu, MOE authorities, and concerned parents regarding their desired talk?
Quote 6: "To end this counter-petition, I refer to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong's statement on Singapore to adopt a more "mediatory approach" to discussing sensitive issues and resolving differences hope the aforementioned petition's starters would see the value in that and contact the relevant students concerned before shutting them and their activities down."
Response 6: Similar to the point made earlier - 'mediatory' works both ways. It does not mean a 'free pass' when it fits one's desires and narrative on sexuality. It does mean some level of accountability to stakeholders by the organisers/supporters, in this case many parents and the position of MOE, NUS and Tembusu college.
Quote 7: "As a member of the public, I can say that society's faith in NUS's handling of sexual issues could be better. This - the setting up of channels for discourse on such matters - is one thing they're doing right."
Response 7: Seems like 'discourse on such matters' has a single definition -> promote this form of sex act within schools.
Again, the question is, will the opposite of promoting, i.e. discouraging such sex acts or talks that promote prudence in one's sexuality and to promote benefits of abstinence be equally supported as a 'channel for such (sexuality) matters'?
Furthermore, it is not healthy to create a ‘sex-saturated’ campus through the activism of sex-enthusiasts. While most may be tolerant of the activity, it is another to be utilising school’s resources to promote such activities.
Quote 8: "I want to live in a society where I can talk about such issues freely and also listen to the marginalized communities on their take on such issues. "
Response 8: Again, no one is stopping the author or organisers from having such discussions in private. The internet too is a wide place, there are many places where 'marginalised communities' share their stories. The issue here is the organising of the event under the school's name and with the school's support. Accountability is being called for concerning the event.
Share the full response here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yCk7iqXBExkIj5FcPsDL6iDPP7ThAeJPdqi9oe0D284/edit?usp=sharing